Andy B wrote:Console wrote:How does travelling close to the speed of light solve number four? When travelling close to the speed of light, time slows down for you (relative to an outside observer), so an hour to her would have been far longer in the real world; this doesn't solve the problem, it only makes it unnecessarily complex and harder to solve.
But if she returned within 10mins for her yet her mum says it was 40mins then more time has passed to a stationary observer.
Ezza- I shall pretend I didn't read that, I'm a very handsome man I shall have you know!
Hmm, evidentially we read the question differently. I read it as though she went for an hour shopping and then took ten minutes to return (which presumably means it took her ten minutes to get there too). In which case, she would have been gone for longer than the 40 minutes than her mother claimed she had been gone.
If we take your interpretation, then your proposed solution of near light speed travel still doesn't work. Ignoring the obvious lack of a drive capable of propelling an object to speeds anywhere near C, there's the little problem of accelerating and decelerating, not to mention turning and avoiding obstacles. It would take a long, long time to safely accelerate to even 1% of the speed of light without crushing the then-human-looking lifeforms, and just as long to decelerate; you would have to travel around the planet many, many times for the acceleration and deceleration, and out of the atmosphere too, as the air resistance would certainly stop any ship from reaching such immense speeds. Also, how would you shop at near light speed? Reaching your arm outside of the ship (to pick up items, or to pay) at such speeds would tear it from your body, at best. Sounds like a bit much to just
add 30 minutes to your shopping time.
Of course, all of this is rather (and almost literally) academic, as Viv told me that my answer was, infact, correct (however bizarre that may seem).